🚀 go-pugleaf

Gatos Loco <gatosloco@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 25 Sep 2004 08:55:04 -0700, blsepe@yahoo.com (Laurie) wrote:
>>Gatos Loco <gatosloco@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >They weren't stupid, they just didn't need technology.

I have no idea where anyone would get the idea that Native
Americans didn't need, or have, technology.  That is naive
beyond description (or... more likely just a bit of culture
centric hyperbole).

The difference is *what kind* of technology they developed, as
compared to what kind Europeans developed.  What they didn't
need was technology for mass destruction of their neighbors,
which clearly was the highest priority for virtually all
European cultures (those who didn't, were the victims of those
who did).

>>> Even without "technology" they managed to hunt several species to
>>> extinction. And contrary to the belief that  they just lived in peace

There is no evidence that Native cultures in the Western
Hemisphere hunted *any* species to extinction.

Not that a few people haven't tried pretty hard to manufacture a
case for that, but it requires a set of blinders that is rather
large!

For example, the usual case made is a claim that with the
development of Clovis technology the megafauna in North America
was hunted to extinction.  A nice set of circumstantial evidence
can be assembled to make that appear somewhat likely; and there
are only a few holes in the theory too.

Of course, the holes are *large*.  E.g., no Clovis technology in
Asia, yet the megafauna there disappeared at exactly the same
time as the megafauna in North America.  Clearly Clovis
technology, or Native Americans for that matter, had *nothing*
to do with the extinction of megafauna, either in America or in
Asia.

>>> and harmony... They also fought amongst themselves quite a bit. In

Sure, but not anything like the way Europeans did.  They had no
driving ambition to develop technology to commit genocide as a
regular part of international relations.

>>> fact many of these tribal disputes continue today, now they take the
>>> form of land disputes and such.  Which then makes a convinient excuse
>>> for the gov to settle such disputes by land confiscation.

True.  Now, if only the whole world were as lacking in
aggression!

>>> Probably did less damage because they didn't have any real beasts of
>>> burden until horses were introduced. Whith the exception of lamas of
>>> course. And there weapons were simple. Military campaigns aren't as
>>> easy when you have to walk and carry all of your goods with you.

As noted, they had no *desire* to engage in that kind of
warfare.

>>> The Aztecs enslaved many members of small tribes. Which then prompted
>>> many of these tribes to fight alongside the spanish when they
>>> destroyed there empire.

The Aztecs were the most European like of all cultures in the
Americas.  One needs to realize first and foremost that they
were not typical.  Citing the Aztecs as an example is to demonstrate
the exception which proves the rule.  In general, Native cultures
in North America were *not* similar to Europeans.

>>> When you look at the fact the most of the rest of humanity on the
>>> globe was exposed to each other for such a long time the transfer of
>>> technology between these people was vast. Mostly the chinese invented
>>> everything and then a lot of europeans took credit for inventing it.

But in fact what the Europeans did was to put so many
technologies to use... in violent ways.  Other cultures just
didn't have that need to be so violent.

>>> Indians had a lot of calender technology. As well as other means of
>>> survival. Saying they were ignorant is kind of pointless though.
>>> Unfamiliar with EuroAsian cultures perhaps. But they managed to create
>>> somewhat complex societies.

"Somewhat complex", eh?

They had *larger* cities, that were vastly cleaner and healthier
than those of Europe.  Of course, the first 30 years of exposure
to the diseases that Europe had bred virtually wiped out Native
civilization in North America.

>>> They werent just innocent peaceful beings though.
>>> But if you feel better believing it was all a peace and harmony thing,
>>> and that prompts you to live more peacefully don't let me stop you.
>>> You are probably better off that way.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Gato Loco
>>
>>The Indians were far from ignorant.  We may look at their society as
>>being complex but that's just because we're spoiled.
>
>I wasn't saying they were ignorant. I was saying they were unfamiliar
>with AEuroAsian socieities.... So I don't know if you were talking
>about what I said or the person before me.
>
>Just clarifying.
>
>Ignorance is relative only to a specific idea of what intellegence is.
>There are plenty of people who claim to be civilized that could be
>considered completely ignorant to natural process. IMO

Quite frankly it sounds, from what you have written, as if you
haven't got the foggiest notion what Native cultures actually
were prior to contact, or for that matter what they are today.

The trivialization of concepts, such as your comment about
"peace and harmony" and the idea that we can see their societies
as "complex but that's just because we're spoiled" is just
abjectly ignorant.

The basic differences are that "environmentalism" is raised to
the level of metaphysic by Native cultures.  They absolutely
_require_ harmony with the environment.  They also rule by
consensus, not by force and not by a tyranny of the majority
(aka democracy).

Compare that to the European/American cultures, where we view
the environment as an enemy that must be conquered by the use of
better engineering and higher technology.  Our form of rule
literally has to make an exception for each and every specific
minority that is to be protected, because by default we simply
destroy minorities.

One way of viewing that comparison, is not to call one or the
other more or less complex, because obviously they are both
*very* complex.  The fact is though, one set of cultures is
highly sophisticated and the other is not.  The sophisticated
cultures do not require the use of technology to sustain
themselves through force, while the others are sophisticated
*only* in the area of using violence to survive.  Which is _not_
to deny that technology (developed for violence or not) also
contributes to a higher standard of living for any culture.  It
clearly does.  Of course the difference is in the distribution
of the benefits, not the value of those benefits.

-- 
FloydL. Davidson           <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@barrow.com